[b1_ana] Fwd: TAC/iTAC resp.

Elena Long ellie at jlab.org
Thu Jun 13 23:09:24 EDT 2013 

A_{EW} is the parity violating asymmetry, which comes into play with polarized beam. It's ~4E-4 like Oscar mentioned, and further reduced by integrating both beam states. With unpolarized beam, we need to be careful about A_V^d. I'm working on trying to get out some numbers, but am not entirely familiar with Arenhovel's formalism and so it'll take some time to get an estimate I'm confident with. 

What level can we cancel out Pz to (can we do this with hole-burning?)? If we can integrate over Pz states to the 10^-few level, that could scale A_V^d down to the point where it's entirely negligible. 

Take care,
Ellie

------------------------------------------
Elena Long
Ph.D. Candidate
Kent State University
ellie at jlab.org
elong5 at kent.edu
(757) 354-4278
http://www.personal.kent.edu/~elong5

On Jun 13, 2013, at 10:59 PM, Karl Slifer <karl.slifer at unh.edu> wrote:

> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Karl Slifer <karl.slifer at unh.edu>
> Date: Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [b1_ana] TAC/iTAC resp.
> To: Dustin Keller <dustin at jlab.org>
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Dustin,
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Dustin Keller <dustin at jlab.org> wrote:
>> The 12% is for the total error with 10% from the target (hole burning).
>> The 10% was already on the high end and combined with the other systematics
>> it became 12%.  This difference is not really that important to me if you
>> like 12% better.
>> 
>> I think figure 2 a) is a bit detrimental.  This shows the combination
>> of contributions but is really to big for what we want.  Why put
>> it in?  2 b) is good.
> 
> JP suggested this, and we discussed at the last meeting: 
> 
> 0.355%/15 days/2 cycles per day = 1.2*10^{-4}  over a single 12 hour cycle.
> 
> It seems very convincing to me.
> 
> 
>> 
>> As I mentioned in the e-mail the 0.1 mm holes in the cups design was
>> just an order of magnitude.  After checking today its actually 0.35 mm,
>> I would like to change the number there.
>> 
> 
> OK
>  
>> 
>> Unless I'm looking at the wrong version the note in Ref. 14 does not
>> address the parity violating asymmetries they were asking about.
>> However when I looked into this I did see that they were very much
>> negligible but only in regard to the paper they mentioned.  In addition
>> the Ref. 14 points out issues around additional components to the asymmetry
>> that may bring up more questions than answers.  (ie the final expression
>> in Eq. 9. of Ref. 14).
> 
> OK
> 
> thanks,
> 
>  Karl 
>> 
>> dustin
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Karl Slifer wrote:
>> 
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > Attached please find a revision of Dustin's note.  Mostly I've just
>> > front-loaded the document with what I think is the most important
>> > information. So if possible, atleast take a look at the abstract and first
>> > page.  The rest of the changes are pretty minor typo errors and slight
>> > trimming of redundant discussions.  One concrete change is that I inflated
>> > the estimate of relative uncertainty on Pzz with hole burning in the text
>> > from 10% to 12% to better reflect what is shown in Fig. 1, and I simply
>> > labeled the two projection plots as Pzz=20% and Pzz=30%, instead of
>> > with/without hole burning.
>> >
>> > Note: we are still missing the "killer plot" from g2p or other low current
>> > experiment to back up the pion yield plot from Transversity, but it looks
>> > like that will take some time to obtain.
>> >
>> > I'm aiming to send the PAC reader response tonight, so please do try to
>> > take a look beforehand, or let me know if you want more time.
>> >
>> > thanks much,
>> >
>> > -Karl
>> >
>> > ---
>> > Karl J. Slifer
>> > Assistant Professor
>> > University of New Hampshire
>> > Telephone : 603-722-0695
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Dustin Keller <dustin at jlab.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> see below,
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Karl Slifer wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hi Ellie, Dustin
>> >>>
>> >>> Sorry this question is a bit late, but I would appreciate some
>> >>> clarification on the plots in the most recent
>> >>> technote<
>> >> https://userweb.jlab.org/~dustin/work/b1_dir/Azz_response/Azz_response.pdf
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Please let me know if I have the following correct:
>> >>>
>> >>> 1) The plots in the technote show a systematic error that combines 6%
>> >> total
>> >>> relative uncertainty combined with the drift errors in table 1 of the
>> >>> technote.
>> >> There are two plots.  One, without hole-burning should show a 6% relative
>> >> with drift in table 1.  The one with hole-burning should show a 12%
>> >> relative with 2/3 of the drift listed in table 1.
>> >>
>> >>> 2)  The 6% relative systematic has been reduced from the 9.2% relative
>> >>> error listed in table 3 of the submitted proposal.
>> >> For no hole-burning that is ture.
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> 3) The reduction comes from cutting the polarimetry relative uncertainty
>> >>> from 8% to 4%.
>> >> This reduction is for no hole burning but increases a bit with
>> >> hole-burning when using 10% relative insead of 4%.
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> 4) This is justified by using the expected uncertainty from line shape
>> >>> fitting instead of TE.
>> >> Yes as stated in the note from line shape fitting combined with cold NMR.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> And if this is all correct, I have a question: is claiming reduction of
>> >> the
>> >>> relative (non-drift) uncertainty from 9% to 6% (visually) worth it, since
>> >>> it complicates the discussion, and I was under the impression that the
>> >>> drift uncertainties dominated.
>> >>
>> >> Drift is reduced as well for the hole-burning cases.  Drift is dominate
>> >> close to the zero axis but for some of our point in higher x if we assume
>> >> kumano like parameterization the relative can become more dominate.  The
>> >> point of the two plots is to show that with hole burning there is a
>> >> reduction of drift but that the increase from the relative uncertainty
>> >> still is not disadvantageous.
>> >>
>> >> give me a call for more detail
>> >> 434-924-6799
>> >> thanks
>> >> dustin
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> -Karl
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ---
>> >>> Karl J. Slifer
>> >>> Assistant Professor
>> >>> University of New Hampshire
>> >>> Telephone : 603-722-0695
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Long, Elena <Elena.Long at unh.edu> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> My apologizes, the Pzz_40_* files have Rel. Sys=6%.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Take care,
>> >>>> Ellie
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Elena Long, Ph.D.
>> >>>> Post Doctoral Research Associate
>> >>>> University of New Hampshire
>> >>>> elena.long at unh.edu
>> >>>> ellie at jlab.org
>> >>>> (603) 862-1962
>> >>>> http://nuclear.unh.edu/~elong
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Wed 05 Jun 2013 04:11:34 PM EDT, Elena Long wrote:
>> >>>>> Good afternoon,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I've attached *.eps plots using the drift uncertainties listed in
>> >>>>> Table 1 of the ITAC response. They are included as a weighted average
>> >>>>> to each x bin, where the bins have been collected across multiple
>> >>>>> spectrometer settings. Pzz_20_* files are with Pzz=0.2 and Rel.
>> >>>>> Sys=12%, Pzz_40_* files are with Pzz=0.4 and Rel. Sys=9%. *_bars_*
>> >>>>> show the uncertainties on the points and *_bands_* splits the
>> >>>>> systematics into a band underneath the estimates.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Take care,
>> >>>>> Ellie
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Wed 05 Jun 2013 02:31:44 PM EDT, Dustin Keller wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Yes I'm ok with using as much or as little as we all decide
>> >>>>>> I guess we can determine what to keep next meeting.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> dustin
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Wed, 5 Jun 2013, O. A. Rondon wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Hi Dustin,
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Minor comment: collaboration spelling.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> One comment Don made is that a 7-8 pages response to a two pages
>> >> report
>> >>>>>>> seems a bit too long. I tend to agree that we should do some
>> >>>>>>> condensing.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Also I think the bulk of section 3 would be better separated as an
>> >>>>>>> addendum. I think at the response level we should concentrate on
>> >>>>>>> justifying 20% Pzz. I believe Karl said that Chris was comfortable
>> >>>>>>> with it.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> One way to attain the desired level would be to use a 6.5 T coil
>> >>>>>>> (simple
>> >>>>>>> solenoid is cheapest, and it would work fine with longitudinal
>> >>>>>>> field). I
>> >>>>>>> do think we should mention that a new target should be seriously
>> >>>>>>> considered, since the CLAS coils were just a stopgap solution for an
>> >>>>>>> experiment that needed both para and perp field.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Cheers,
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Oscar
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Dustin Keller wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Edits have been made to the TAC/iTAC resp. with the
>> >>>>>>>> updated version at
>> >>>>>>>> https://userweb.jlab.org/~dustin/work/b1_dir/Azz_response/
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> additional edits and suggestions are welcome.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> dustin
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 3 Jun 2013, Dustin Keller wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> The working rough draft of the TAC/iTAC response is at
>> >>>>>>>>> https://userweb.jlab.org/~dustin/work/b1_dir/Azz_response/
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> we may need considerable altering, editing, and condensing
>> >>>>>>>>> but all the information is there.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> dustin
>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>>>>> b1_ana mailing list
>> >>>>>>>>> b1_ana at jlab.org
>> >>>>>>>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/b1_ana
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>>>> b1_ana mailing list
>> >>>>>>>> b1_ana at jlab.org
>> >>>>>>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/b1_ana
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>>> b1_ana mailing list
>> >>>>>>> b1_ana at jlab.org
>> >>>>>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/b1_ana
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>> b1_ana mailing list
>> >>>>>> b1_ana at jlab.org
>> >>>>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/b1_ana
>> >>>>>> --
>> >>>>>> Elena Long, Ph.D.
>> >>>>>> Post Doctoral Research Associate
>> >>>>>> University of New Hampshire
>> >>>>>> elena.long at unh.edu
>> >>>>>> ellie at jlab.org
>> >>>>>> (603) 862-1962
>> >>>>>> http://nuclear.unh.edu/~elong
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> b1_ana mailing list
>> >>>> b1_ana at jlab.org
>> >>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/b1_ana
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> b1_ana mailing list
>> >> b1_ana at jlab.org
>> >> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/b1_ana
>> >>
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> b1_ana mailing list
>> b1_ana at jlab.org
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/b1_ana
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> b1_ana mailing list
> b1_ana at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/b1_ana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/b1_ana/attachments/20130613/cb33cb4a/attachment-0001.html

More information about the b1_ana mailing list